Reading a book on the roots of modern-day dispensationalism / 'Christian Zionism' and I have ta say...that 'system' comes from such utter drivel and nonsense as to put into legitimate question the literacy of its proponents.
Nearly unfathomable depths of idiocy.
> Don't be deceived.
You’re almost there, keep going
?
Your statement applies to the entirety of protestantism
...does it apply to Augustinianism?
Because that's what the Reformers wanted, and in substantial part, what they did: return to an Augustinian understanding of sin and grace. Rome responded by reversing their view on semi-Pelagianism and promoted it--even enshrined it--against the Reformers. Even anathematized anyone who disagreed.
So no--I respectfully disagree with you on that point.
What does Rome have to do with this? They had already fallen to heresy and schism centuries before the reformation
Well, maybe I jumped to conclusions, but usually Protestantism is a referent - it's specifically against Rome that we continue to Protest. Be that as it may, I don't think it's accurate to say that "all of Protestantism" was initiated by idiocy and persists through deceit--if I have not misunderstood your post (and please do correct me if I have).
The Roman church became the OG protestants when they broke away from The Church in 1054, then the reformation just democratized the papacy. Now everyone is their own infallible interpreter of scripture. To be fair, I’d say the reformation was more so initiated by pride than by idiocy. Today I’d say protestantism persists through pride, nihilism, deceit, and ignorance. Much of the time willful ignorance, which I would chalk up as idiocy.
In what way do those books hold any authority? Respectfully, I’ll stick to the teachings of The Church and the Church Fathers 🤝
...as much as yours or mine do for persuasion, for gaining understanding.
But no pope or council or Church Father has more authority than the Word of God. And no one of them was right about everything. "Councils may err, and many have erred..."
EO, then?
That’s where we disagree. The ecumenical councils are infallible and do hold authority.
Where did you get your bible from? How do you know it’s the correct cannon of scripture? Without the authority and infallibility of the ecumenical councils you don’t even have a Bible.
To accept that quote from Martin Luther I would first have to accept that he has any sort of authority, which I do not.
Yes, the one true Church, The Holy Orthodox Church. Converted after spending 18 years in a reformed church.
Luther may have said something similar but the quote is from [WCF XXXI.3](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_31) - a Protestant "council," if you will:
> 3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
To understand what we Protestants (or at least we Reformed/Presbyterians) actually think about the question of conciliar authority, I'd suggest reading the whole chapter. It's not long.
The _Scriptures_ are inspired, inerrant and infallible; councils are not. Case in point: what did the 'Ecumenical councils' rule on the question of monophysitism? Which of the contradictory conciliar decisions is the 'right one' and on what basis do you make that determination? These councils have a derived authority "if consonant to the Word of God" - which means Scripture itself has primary authority. And that's what _sola scriptura_ is all about.
Similarly, to understand what we actually think about _sola scriptura_, read [WCF I](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_01) - in particular:
> 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.
Authority is not _bestowed_ or _granted_ by men; it is _self-contained_ and _inherent_ and therefore only _recognized_. We would still have a Bible without the ecumenical councils, because Scripture is self-attesting and "his sheep hear his voice." And the vast majority of the Scriptures (the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings) were already long-established by the Old Testament Church (as organism) before the time of Christ anyway--the church (as organism) simply received them before any official 'stamp of approval' was declared by "The Church" (as organization).
So, where did we get our Bible? That's easy: [2 Peter 1:16-21](https://blb.sc/002Qik) (especially verse 21). And how do we decide doctrinal questions? By being like the Bereans, who received the word with all openness of heart--but then searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were true. In other words: "don't trust, verify."
I don’t accept schismatic councils
Quoting scripture to justify how you know what should be scripture is a circular argument
Scripture is only infallible with an infallible interpreter.
How do you know that the presbyterian interpretation of scripture is the correct one?
Why are there so many different reformed denominations?
If the scriptures interpret themselves why would there be thousands of different denominations that claim sola scriptura?
I didn't see this one before my last response, sorry.
On what authority do you determine which of the councils were "schismatic"? And you didn't answer my question: since they're in contradiction, which of the two early "Ecumenical Councils" would you say is "infallible": the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 or the Council of Chalcedon in 451? And, more importantly, _on what basis_ would you make that determination? To what _higher authority_ would you appeal to arbitrate this doctrinal question?
There is no higher authority than God, so appealing to his authority is not "circular" - the "buck stops there" otherwise we fall prey to a reductio ad absurdum or to an appeal to some human authority (e.g., this council or that one). It's simply _his Word_ so it has _his authority_. That's why it is the ultimate arbiter of all disputes; Scripture is its own interpreter. There are some parts more difficult than others, but what is necessary for salvation can be understood by the smallest child (again, see WCF I on this).
Scripture is infallible in and of itself. There are so many denominations precisely because men can err, and have erred. So how do we figure out what the Scriptures actually teach on the more difficult matters? NOT by looking to one group of fallible men or another, but by going _ad fontes_, like the Bereans, and arguing it out alongside our brothers, weighing what the various schools have suggested through the ages, thinking it through, reasoning together--as the church has done for 2000 years, and will continue to do until his return.
You’re not appealing to God, you’re appealing to man’s interpretation of scripture. I recognize The Church as God’s divine institution, therefore it is infallible. Again, scripture doesn’t interpret itself. If it did everyone would agree on the message of it. Once you deny the infallibility of The Church you get the endless schism we have today.
Frankly, this debate takes hours upon hours. In text format it’ll take months and I don’t really have time for it. The information is out there. You can watch Orthodox Christians debate Presbyterians and see that your arguments don’t hold weight if you’re willing to humble yourself. In the end its up to you whether you want to accept Christ’s church or continue to appeal to man made faith that’s only a couple centuries old.
The point of _sola scriptura_ is still being missed; so is the point that no one uninspired man nor group of uninspired men is infallible. And the only place we find the inspired writings of men is in the Scriptures.
S'OK though--I agree this isn't a great forum and this is a lengthy discussion not well suited to this medium.
Happy to be on the same big-tent team (at least the earliest creeds and councils), though, and especially happy to be on the same #nostr and #bitcoin team. I'm good with that if you are too, brother. And we do consider the Orthodox believers to be brothers in Christ, for whatever that's worth.
🤙
https://www.youtube.com/live/VBv0fEAm8zc
Here’s a good intro
If Christ willed His Church to be visibly one, what did He establish as the lasting center of that unity? Especially since the very councils that defined the Bible’s canon only held authority once ratified by the Bishop of Rome
If you think the Roman church is The Church you’re deluding yourself. There was just a pride parade through the Vatican, c’mon dude
Popes, like Peter himself, can fail personally. That doesn’t invalidate the Church’s doctrine or her apostolic authority.
If Christ willed His Church to be visibly one, what did He establish as the lasting center of that unity?
The gospel message itself, and the Scriptures themselves.
That's the meaning of Matthew 16:18.
Peter is the pebble--the message is the rock.
This is what we confess regarding some of these questions:
### WCF CHAPTER 25
## Of the Church
1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
4. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.
6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.
[Westminster Confession of Faith](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_25)
Translating ‘Cephas’ to pebble is a bit of a stretch even for protestants 😂
The rock is Peter upon whom the Church was built. I understand you disagree, but who’s to say which interpretation is right? 😜
The point is that Jesus used a word _other than_ 'Cephus' when he described what he would build his church on -- which is the point at issue. He didn't say "and on YOU, Peter" and he didn't even say "you are Cephus and on this Cephus I will build..." he used a different word altogether for a reason.
But you're right. This has all been argued before. And until we can agree on the question of sola scriptura -- on what is the final authority -- we'll just continue going around and around...me pointing to the Scriptures and you pointing to the Magisterium... 😂 s'all good brother. We can agree on the Apostles' and the Nicene, etc. and that's cool with me. (For now!! LOL) 🤙
What word did he used? And how do you know this? Or are you assuming he used another word?
We don’t disagree that Scripture is an infallible rule of Faith. We just disagree on who has the final word on what Scripture says.
The magisterium is of course pointing to Scripture when it defines it. I just humbly acknowledge they have a higher authority than me to interpret Scripture.
OK, my memory did not serve me. I'm looking at the Greek behind the text on [BLB](https://blb.sc/002cNF). It was **not** two completely different words (my apologies), but two variations of the same word: "Petros" (masculine, "rock," referring to Peter) and "petra" (feminine, "cliff" or "boulder" - referring to himself, or to the gospel message itself). I do notice, however, in support of your argument, that all the "thees" and "thous" in 16-19...are in the singular form. That's worth thinking about...
I think your second paragraph is spot on, and that's exactly the issue.
As a case study...to whom or to what was Jesus referring with the word "petra" in this verse? To himself, or to Peter (or to Peter's confession)?
Can we look anywhere else in Scripture for support for or against either interpretation? Is there anywhere else in Scripture that is more clear, that could help us interpret this less clear (or at least, debated) passage?
The answer is yes:
- Isaiah 28:16 refers to Christ as "a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation"
- Psalm 118:22 refers to Christ as "the stone that the builders rejected [which] has become the chief cornerstone"
- Isaiah 8:14 refers to Christ as "a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel"
- 1 Peter 2:4-8 (Peter himself!) refers to Christ as "a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious" (obviously referring to Isaiah 28 Psalm 119
- Ephesians 2:20 refers to "Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone"
- Acts 4:11 (Peter) quotes Psalm 118 referring to Christ
- Matthew 21:42-44 / Mark 12:10-11 / Luke 20:17-18 - Jesus quotes Psalm 118 referring to himself
- Romans 9:32-33 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14 identifying Christ as the "stone of stumbling"
- 1 Cor. 13:11 says of Christ, "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ"
- 1 Corinthians 10:4 - "and the Rock was Christ"
Letting Scripture interpret Scripture regarding this debated verse, it seems the evidence is overwhelming: Christ was referring to himself, not to Peter, with the word "petra." And I, for one, don't need anyone to give their stamp of approval on this interpretation--though it does provide me with a measure of assurance that so many others have interpreted it this way too.
when Jesus says,
“You are ‘Cephas’, and on this rock I will build My Church,”
He isn’t speaking Greek, He’s speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word He uses is Kepha, which means rock. So His original words were:
“You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build My Church.”
Unlike Greek, Aramaic makes no distinction between petros (small stone) and petra (large rock). That distinction only appears later in Greek translation, where grammar required the masculine form Petros for Peter’s name.
In other words, Jesus didn’t call Peter a “pebble.” He called him the rock, the same word in both clauses, on which His Church would be built. Any supposed ambiguity arises only from translation, not from what Jesus actually said.
This understanding is entirely consistent with what the earliest Christians believed. But under Sola Scriptura, the interpretation of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, ends up carrying no more weight than Bob from the post office.
If Christ was the "rock" of Matthew 16, why did he change Simon's name to Rock? What sense would that make? What would be the point?
https://youtube.com/shorts/oBKiQhlOC4M
You should watch this entire debate. Jay also debated your boy Nick, and Nick got absolutely drug
Nick?
Yeah, Nick
Lol I don’t look at political commentators like Nick to find answers about Theology and Church History.
I hope you didn’t make your decision based on this.
In Luke 22:31–32, Jesus says:
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to sift you all like wheat; but I have prayed for you (singular), that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
Jesus prays for all the apostles, but intercedes individually for Peter, giving him the mission to strengthen the rest. That’s why early Christians saw Peter’s office as one of unity and confirmation.
The bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, continues that same ministry, the visible center of unity Christ intended for His Church.
A movement without a singular leader is bound to fragment and fail ultimately.
https://www.youtube.com/live/jInSvafzL5Q
It’s long but you probably ought to watch it
Never heard of Tim Gordon, and after watching that clip I can see why.
Would love to hear an answer to my original question tho.
If you believe the Orthodox Church separated/arranged along nation and ethnic lines has (or is capable of achieving) the unity Jesus prayed for in John 17:20–23, then more power to you. I don’t see it.
I would answer your question the same way Jay did, where is your papal supremacy taught in the 1st 1000 years?
You realize that all the different ethnic churches have the same doctrines and dogmas right? There are numerous orthodox churches near me, whether I go to the Aniochian Church, the Greek Church, or OCA Church, the same exact service will be being conducted. The little OCA mission Church I attend was started by a Greek Church, monks and nuns from the Russian monastery down the street regularly attend our services. So what exactly is your point about there being different ethnic Churches?
Just how depraved does the catholic church have to get before you start to question its legitimacy?
Have to agree with nostr:npub1e5sergtz9hym5dj5ze4zfl8akll9lugnsdvhrmnt9yv9u0vuefhqxeylem on that one, though he won't like what I say next (ha) - Calvin has a great section in his _Institutes_ on how the Bishop of Rome slowly schemed to make himself "first among equals." And he rehearses the embarrassing (to Rome) truth that at one point, there were three Popes and they all excommunicated each other (!). The Conciliar period is also a counterfactual to the argument about "one unbroken papal succession from Peter."
Scriptures have clearly said that the church is to be governed by elders (Gk., "presbyteros") which is why we do it that way. Even the recent Pope Benedict admitted that the early church was de facto presbyterian (i.e., ruled by "elders"), and that Paul's Epistles made presbyterianism the rule de jure as well. Not congregational, not personal prelates--elders.
Be that as it may...it is not **who** we have earthly communion with, but **what** we actually believe, that defines the church. Which is why there are true Christians -- at varying degrees of maturity and understanding -- in nearly every communion or denomination. I'm relying here, of course, on the distinction between the church 'visible' (i.e., institutions and denominations) and the church 'invisible' (i.e., those individuals who are truly in Christ).
"no pope or council or church father" and exactly where did you get this Word of God?
Please see my other response to nostr:npub1e5sergtz9hym5dj5ze4zfl8akll9lugnsdvhrmnt9yv9u0vuefhqxeylem . But the TL;DR: is that we received the Word of God from "holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit" (see 2 Peter 1:16-21). Men did not bestow or grant authority; men only receptively recognized as genuine the authority already inherent in the Very Word of God--the authority of its Author, who has supreme authority in himself.
"'holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit'" that's who the Church fathers are!
No, that verse in 2 Peter is referring to the authors/penmen of Scripture -- and the OT, specifically. The quote, "holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit" is from (an older version of) the children's [First Catechism](https://opc.org/cce/FirstCatechism.html) and is meant to be a paraphrase of that verse in 2 Peter.
“We got the Word of God from the Word of God” doesn’t work 🔄🔄🔄
First of all, _all arguments for ultimate authority are circular by definition_.
Second, of course it works. God has authority in and of himself; when he speaks, his Words "inherit" that authority. It's like an official putting his seal on an official letter: once you recognize the seal to be authentic, YOU have not given IT authority, you have merely recognized the authority that it already has.
All this said...there's no need for us to recapitulate the disagreements between EO and the Reformed Faith here. It's all been done before. Here's a helpful article outlining some of the main criticisms that Protestant/Reformed would have of Orthodoxy: [A Calvinist Looks at Orthodoxy](https://www.opc.org/new_horizons/calvinist_on_orthodoxy.html).
But if/since you were in a Reformed church for 18 years (I would be curious, which one?), then I doubt any of these disagreements are news to you. Scripture exhorts us to grow in our understanding, grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to lead us into a fuller understanding of the truth, we are told to move from the milk to the meat, he has given us the many "helps" of pastors and teachers for two thousands of years in order for us to grow, learn, refine, etc. -- as the article (rightly, I think) states, the EO remains "undeveloped" and I would add, gently, immature. It avoids questions and doctrines that the Scriptures (namely, Paul) mark as essential (i.e., original sin, sovereign electing grace, Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, etc.).
We would do well to hear the Word of God on these matters.
No. Church tradition is the ultimate, and the Bible is part of that tradition. "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." 2 Thessalonians 2:15
They do though. Jesus didn’t give me or you the authority to bind and loose, He gave it to the apostles - Mt 16:19 and that authority was passed on through apostolic succession.
Yes, the Church can err in non-infallible matters, but that doesn’t make her equal to any individual interpreter. Without a visible teaching authority, Sola Scriptura turns everyone into their own pope, which is why it’s led to so much division instead of the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21
My brother, the words of God carry the Authority of their Author. No one man or group of men has an _equal_ Authority with the Author of life. That's the issue. We do not add our stamp of approval on top of his seal of authenticity. There is a certain degree of authority involved in our fathers and brothers, but it is a _derived_ authority and it is only "if consonant with the Word of God" which means they can be wrong.
There is truth to the idea that we read the Scriptures "with the church," but even then--groups of men can go astray, as had happened just before the Reformation. Luther was right to protest, and he was right to plead for a return to Augustinianism. The grounds for this is that no one man or group of men has authority above the Scriptures; the Scriptures are the final arbiter of all disputes.
Even going back to the great Schism between the East and West, we can debate about "how" that happened, whether it was in order, whether it was truly "ecumenical," but the actual substance of the debate is the more important thing. And the West was **right** to add the _filioque_ clauses--doctrinally speaking. The East was (respectably!) keen to preserve the unity of God -- the "numerically one" God -- the single _principium_ -- but once we start speaking about the order of operations, that by definition shifts the focus from the "oneness of substance" to the "threeness of persons." And Scriptures are clear that the Holy Spirit _does proceed_ from both the Father and the Son.
The most important matter is not "who is saying what" but "what is being said." We even see this in Paul: he rejoiced that the gospel was being preached correctly (even though with malicious motive) and he lambasted those who preached the gospel wrongly (even though with arguably good intention).
The message, not the man, is the thing.
Rome can’t win on scriptural grounds, which is why they make it about authority structures instead, but Scripture itself corrected Rome’s errors at the Reformation, proving Scripture’s sufficiency without their magisterium.
Right on.
Paul outright anathematized anyone who preached "another gospel (which is not another)" - **himself included** - so it seems rather important, I think, that we ask the question: _who gets the gospel right_? And don't miss the vital point that he included himself in this warning: that means the most important thing is not "who is saying it" but "what is being said."
That’s not the implication at all. No one (not me anyway) is comparing the authority of God with that of men, rather, I am acknowledging that Christ gave His Church real, derived authority to teach in His name.
The bible doesn’t interpret itself, so the question becomes: who decides what is consonant with the Word of God? Is it every individual reader? That has to be the case absent a magisterium, which is why Sola Scriptura has led to thousands of competing interpretations, each claiming to follow Scripture alone.
True unity requires not only God’s Word, but the teaching authority Christ Himself established to preserve it faithfully.
I agree that the authority of our teachers / fathers / brothers in the church is derived from authority, and (thus) inferior to it. And what happens when those teachers / fathers / brothers disagree? They appeal to Scripture, make their arguments from Scripture. Yes, sadly, there are those who misinterpret the Scriptures - whether from ignorance or malice - and Paul warned us of them in Acts 20.
That derived authority is not vested in individuals or even offices directly--but to the whole church, as a church. And then men are chosen to fill those offices--but they can be removed for unfaithfulness. But there's only one "kind" of authority in the church.
And, when I say that the Scriptures interpret themselves, what I mean is that we can interpret the more difficult passages by the more clear passages, and follow what comes out "by good and necessary consequence." I also mean that the Scriptures are _sufficient_ for teaching us "all things necessary for life and godliness," etc.
appreciate the thoughtful reply. I agree that all authority in the Church is derived from Christ, but He clearly established that authority through visible offices, not just the collective body of believers (see 1 Timothy 3, among other places). The Church doesn’t ordain itself afterall; it receives leadership through apostolic succession.
And while “Scripture interprets Scripture” sounds good, someone still has to decide which passages clarify others. I would say that’s already interpretation. The early Church settled those disputes through councils guided by apostolic authority, not by individual consensus.
I think we probably agree more than we disagree on loving Scripture, we just differ on how Christ intended His Church to guard it.
Just talked to two semi-religious teenagers who won’t join a church because they think Christians aren’t critical thinkers over the massacre of Palestinians.
Sad, but understandable. Tell them to find a NAPARC church--these are rooted in historic, Reformed/Presbyterian Covenant Theology, which is fundamentally incompatible with dispensationalism.
Would like to share more 🙏
Here's a decent primer:
Stephen Sizer, "[The Road to Balfour](https://britainpalestineproject.org/the-road-to-balfour-the-history-of-christian-zionism-by-stephen-sizer-2/)"
But the worst of the worst are Hal Lindsey, John Hagee, and their ilk. Outright twisting of scripture to mean its exact opposite, replacing the prominance of Christ with the land, rebuking evangelistic efforts toward Jews, even saying Jesus is not the Messiah (for the Jews)...sick, sick, stuff.
Oof
To be fair, the rise of higher criticism from Europe infected the great seminaries like Princeton in the late 1800s, and along comes a system that promised to return to a time of taking the Bible seriously by focusing on a very literal hermeneutic. Men like DL Moody were fighting a battle, and they were desperate for allies. Not excusing them, but it was clear some powerful forces took advantage of that. (Read Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism for a better way to fight that battle).
To this day, a critique of dispensationalism is received as an attack on the veracity of Scripture. And I have friends who are convinced that if you have a consistently literal interpreation of the Bible, you naturally arrive at dispensationalism. That is a tough conversation to have, even if you trust each other.
I think if they would consistently let the New Testament interpret the Old, you naturally reject the dispensational system.
Right on.
Idiocy, or deceit?
IMO, it started with the former, then has been co-opted by the latter. Deceit and opportunism. And perpetuated by idiocy and ignorance.
Although nostr:npub16gdd9ywe4wnyvcvcc8e62pkc4yyvjtgxxkm54z0w8c5er56xepfsxauk90 's point is a good reminder. There was an element of trying to regain some ground on the question of Scriptural inerrancy. But in this case, as with Barthianism, the cure has been (arguably) worse than the disease. Modernism (a.k.a., "Liberalism") wreaked havoc on the seminaries a hundred years ago. The people (rightfully) lost trust in them and the pastors/theologians they were churning out, overreacted into anti-formalism and anti-intellectualism, that created a vacuum...sad story. Thankful for the faithful few who held the line without falling off one side of the mountain's ridge or the other.
Be it as it may. It’s the past, today we have to pray for our dispensationalist brothers and sisters. And we have to present them, in patience and brotherly love, the biblical truth concerning Israel. You have written various posts on this topic, and you have given biblical proof that the followers of Christ are Israel. Not the country funded by ardent despisers of Jesus. Thank you for this.
Amen to this. My frustration is aimed mainly at these big Televangelists that have led so many astray (and made a fair penny doing it), and the wild-eyed politicians that have sold out their own constituency in service of a rotten religious doctrine in hopes of "forcing God's hand" into "Armageddon."
It's the wrongness of it. It's not fear, it's not hatred, it's just the utter wrongness of it, and the harm it has brought, and will bring. If that makes sense.
It makes perfect sense. I’m 100% with you in your frustration.
If you love truth, you will always hate lies. And if you love your neighbours, you will always suffer, if people deceive them, and even harm their faith.
The only thing that keeps me going, is to remember, that Jesus warned us of false prophets in the time before he’s coming. And Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, that prior to Christ’s coming there will “come a falling away first”, and man, there is a lot of falling away happening!
There is no hope in politicians, and preachers preaching for financial gain. Maybe there will be Saul to Paul situations. God only knows.
When I am overwhelmed by the evilness and the ruthless lies of this world, I part from the daily routine and seek God in prayer, in his word, in his creation and remember all his blessings in my life. And I get better. And then we go on and present God’s truth to this fallen world again. I believe this is the Christian walk of life. Millions have walked it before us. 🫂
> A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word spoken in due season, how good is it!
-- Proverbs 15:23)
> Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.
-- Proverbs 16:24
A hearty amen! and thank you, for posting this.
You’re welcome 🫂. Thank you for these beautiful verses. All glory to God. Onwards.
I can't send you magic internet money. Getting abn error from Alby
